I have the day off. Here are my movie-going options. I can drive an hour to see “(500) Days of Summer,” which I really want to see. Or, at the local googolplex, I can see “A Perfect Getaway” or “Time Traveler’s Wife” or “G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra” or “The Ugly Truth” — none of which I want to see.
I’ll probably end up seeing “District 9” if I decide to venture out of my apartment, only because it would give me a blog topic; I haven’t been as blown away by the previews as the rest of the world.
I’ve heard the explanation that Hollywood just gives people what they want, and I am sick of hearing it. It’s just not true. Yes, “The Ugly Truth” is selling more tickets than “(500) Days of Summer,” but that’s because it’s in more theaters. According to the last issue of Entertainment Weekly, “Ugly Truth” has made $54.7 million and “(500) Days” has made $6.8 million. But “(500) Days” is winning the per-site average $10,439 to $4,576.
Anecdotally, those statistics hold up. Among my friends — who are run-of-the-mill moviegoers, not art-house snobs — all the talk has been about “(500) Days of Summer.” Same with media coverage: Entertainment Weekly, by no means a niche magazine, has spilled significantly more ink over the “small” Zooey Deschanel romance than the “big” Katherine Heigl romance. The only time I hear “The Ugly Truth” referenced is when someone mentions how bad the romantic comedy genre is.
That’s another commonly spouted falsehood. “(500) Days of Summer,” by most accounts, is great. And, strictly speaking, it’s a romantic comedy. What people are really saying is “Bad romantic comedies are really bad.”
And Hollywood continually gives wide releases and big marketing budgets to the bad movies under the false explanation that that’s what we want. If the release strategy and marketing budgets of “Ugly Truth” and “(500) Days” were flipped, the ticket sales and earnings would also be flipped.
People liked “Knocked Up” because of Judd Apatow, and they like “Grey’s Anatomy” because it’s set in a hospital (and I liked “Roswell” because of Shiri Appleby and the alien mythology). Heigl is not truly a star, she has just been labeled a star by Hollywood because she’s been in a few hits. I don’t hold that against her; it’s not her fault, and she seems like a nice, down-to-Earth person (she once withdrew her name from awards consideration because she didn’t feel she was doing award-worthy work). She’s just a commodity that got put in a certain category by movie studios because the dominos fell in a certain pattern.
Deschanel, though, has a quality (probably those blue eyes that you can get lost in) that makes all of my friends want to see her movies. She’s also been in good movies, but credit for those good movies tends to get placed elsewhere; she tends to be in auteur’s works (some good, some bad) rather than star-centered vehicles. For example: Deschanel is in “Almost Famous,” and she’s good in it, but there are so many good things about that movie that — for simplicity’s sake — we give all the credit to the writer-director, Cameron Crowe.
Heigl and Deschanel are both popular, but Heigl is Hollywood popular and Deschanel is genuinely popular (as in: the populace likes her). Hollywood doesn’t understand that, and that’s why I and thousands of other would-be ticket-buyers will end up seeing “(500) Days” only when it’s released on DVD.
I understand why this is. Hollywood is a business, and it’s following an effective business model (and that’s great, because I am rooting for the American economy to bounce back, so I like to hear any success story).
But please, Hollywood: Stop saying you are giving people what they want, when it’s so obviously not true.
Comments
Drive the hour, man. District 9 seems interesting but I would drive the hour. And dont you have Hurt Locker? That seems to be the best-reviewed movie
of the year, so that seems like a good option# Posted By Matt | 8/14/09 4:06 PM
Next weekend I’m going into the big city for some Twins-Royals games, so I’ll catch “(500) Days” then, hopefully. I kind of feel like doing nothing today (although, as a workaholic, I can’t entirely enjoy that because I feel guilty about not doing anything; being me sucks).
I don’t like war movies, unless John Rambo is the main character.# Posted By John Hansen | 8/14/09 7:03 PM
A little late on this post as your weekend is over.. but I couldn’t resist puting my 2 cents in on the ‘Ugly Truth’. I thought it was hilarious! And.. as you mentioend this is not because of Heigl but 110% only because of Butler. The guy is HILARIOUS! If I hadn’t known better I would have thought this was an Apatow film. The humor is perverted and dark, not cheesy as I suspected.
I will say this movie would not be high on my list of choices, but going to it for the sake of going to a ‘chick flick’ with my girlfriend I was pleasantly surprised. I think I enjoyed it more than she did…. until the end when the ‘chick flick’ part kicked in anyway..# Posted By shaune | 8/21/09 1:28 PM
Interesting to hear that “Ugly Truth” is actually good. It has gotten bad reviews. Still, I’m guessing “(500) Days” is the superior film. Let me know if you see it.
“Ugly Truth” was co-written by Karen McCullah Lutz, who also writes for “10 Things I Hate About You,” so I’m guessing that’s where the wit comes from. And a likable actor can transform an OK film into an enjoyable film.
That’s why I’ll be checking out “Post Grad.” I don’t know if it’ll be good or not, but with Rory Gilmore and Matt Saracen as the main characters, I’d be surprised if I didn’t enjoy it.# Posted By John Hansen | 8/23/09 12:33 PM